Elizabeth I predeceases Edward VI and Mary I: What happens next?

[SavoyTruffle]

Something I don't see so often: Let's say Lizzie meets an untimely end before her OTL accession in 1558. The reigns of her siblings (and Jane Grey's nine-day reign) go as OTL, for simplicity's sake.

With Henry VIII having no more trueborn heirs available, would the succession go to the Stuarts a generation early, with Mary, Queen of Scots acceding to the throne? Or would Parliament look for alternatives, such as Mary's son James?

 

[RedKing]

James hasn’t been born yet. Parliament (which was Pro-Protestant in 1558 IIRC), will push for Lady Katherine Grey to be Queen. Queen Mary I will push for either Mary Stuart (unlikely) or Margaret Douglas (unlikely, but not impossible) to be made her heir. She would likely need Spanish backing to do so. So chances are it will be Katherine Grey who becomes Queen.

 

[Maeglin]

James wasn't born in 1558. It goes to Mary Queen of Scots.

Catholicism had been restored, of course, and after the misadventures of 1553, no-one would be sticking their neck out to push for a Protestant succession. As long as Mary Stuart doesn't ruffle feathers, she gets the throne.

 

[RedKing]

James wasn't born in 1558. It goes to Mary Queen of Scots.

Catholicism had been restored, of course, and after the misadventures of 1553, no-one would be sticking their neck out to push for a Protestant succession. As long as Mary Stuart doesn't ruffle feathers, she gets the throne.

This is waaay to optimistic. The majority of the nobles were Protestant, and the peasantry were just barely majority Catholic, Mary is not succeeding Mary I here, she’s being raised in France and due to marry the French King. No Englishmen Catholic or Protestant would accept that.

If you want a Catholic heir, Margaret Douglas is your best bet. The problem is, that’s her only advantage. She is the weakest claimant by both primogeniture and the third succession act. Worse still, IIRC Katherine Grey had led the Spaniards into believing she was Catholic. This means Katherine Grey will have even more support. In other words, the heir and future Queen is most likely Katherine Grey.

 

[Maeglin]

I think you're vastly over-estimating English Protestantism at this point. What secured Protestantism was the lengthy reign of Elizabeth (and the 1588 Armada) - without it, the majority stay Catholic. And that's even before considering that hardline Protestants (who dominated under Edward) were fringe - the Henrican Church was basically a 'national' Catholic Church, with Anglicanism being a matter of political expediency, rather than religious sincerity. So long as there is no attempt to take back monastic land, no-one in 1558 is going to grumble at a Catholic monarch. Mary Tudor herself was genuinely popular in 1553, and while she burned through that (haha...) in five years, there is not going to be a wholesale rejection of Catholicism.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

All good points. But we're in 1558, not 1701. While Parliament holds significant power, they don't have as much power relative to the monarch at this point as they did post-Glorious Revolution.

After all, England broke away from Rome not because it was a bottom-up move, but because Henry VIII really wanted a son and was perfectly willing to piss off the Pope AND the Emperor.

 

[RedKing]

I think you're vastly over-estimating English Protestantism at this point.

I am not.

What secured Protestantism was the lengthy reign of Elizabeth (and the 1588 Armada) - without it, the majority stay Catholic.

Yes, the population is (I.e. the merchant, the baker, the blacksmith), the nobles are mostly Protestants. The Howard’s are the only noble house still Catholic IIRC. Parliament is majority Protestant, which is why Mary couldn’t change her heir in OTL.

Mary Tudor herself was genuinely popular in 1553, and while she burned through that (haha...) in five years, there is not going to be a wholesale rejection of Catholicism.

Except the succession act in place literally declares Katherine Grey the heir, and Parliament won’t led Mary overrule this.

All of this proves England will accept a foreign Queen, who’s really a Frenchwoman why? No one will accept to Mary Stuart being Queen, not as long as Margaret Douglas and her bride are alive. If you want a Catholic heir, Margaret is your best bet.

 

[VVD0D95]

I am not.

Yes, the population is (I.e. the merchant, the baker, the blacksmith), the nobles are mostly Protestants. The Howard’s are the only noble house still Catholic IIRC. Parliament is majority Protestant, which is why Mary couldn’t change her heir in OTL.

Except the succession act in place literally declares Katherine Grey the heir, and Parliament won’t led Mary overrule this.

All of this proves England will accept a foreign Queen, who’s really a Frenchwoman why? No one will accept to Mary Stuart being Queen, not as long as Margaret Douglas and her bride are alive. If you want a Catholic heir, Margaret is your best bet.

Most evidence suggests that the majority of the country was Catholic, not Protestant ar this point. Elizabeth took the throne after Mary because most people saw her as her sisters heir. It was only durinf Elizabeth’s long reign that the change to Protestantism truly happened

 

[Tyler96]

The Howard’s are the only noble house still Catholic IIRC.

I mean, the Nevilles and Percies led a Catholic uprising in 1569.

 

[Maeglin]

I am not.

Yes, the population is (I.e. the merchant, the baker, the blacksmith), the nobles are mostly Protestants. The Howard’s are the only noble house still Catholic IIRC. Parliament is majority Protestant, which is why Mary couldn’t change her heir in OTL.

Except the succession act in place literally declares Katherine Grey the heir, and Parliament won’t led Mary overrule this.

All of this proves England will accept a foreign Queen, who’s really a Frenchwoman why? No one will accept to Mary Stuart being Queen, not as long as Margaret Douglas and her bride are alive. If you want a Catholic heir, Margaret is your best bet.

If Parliament genuinely cared about saving Anglicanism, they wouldn't have passed Mary's Repeal Acts. All they cared about was holding onto former monastic land. As I said before, Anglicanism (outside the small fringe dominant under Edward) was simply a matter of political expediency.

No, the Third Succession Act did not declare Katherine Grey the heir (it did, of course, declare Elizabeth the heir). The promotion of the Greys was Henry VIII's will.

You're adopting an anachronistic view of English nationalism. Hell, by 1603 - at which point a latent nationalism was developing - the people of England were happy enough to install the Scottish James on the throne. Sure James was a Protestant, so it didn't bother anyone on religious grounds in 1603, but Mary Stuart's religion was the majority in 1558. As long as she doesn't make a mess of things (which to be fair, she might. Mary Stuart was not the sharpest knife in the drawer), she inherits.

 

[pandizzy]

Y'all are acting as if the french will not do everything they can to put mary stuart on the throne

 

[FalconHonour]

You see, Mary, Queen of Scots main problem is her French husband. No one is going to want a French King Consort - the English might not be nationalist at this point, but they certainly are Anti-French. Margaret Douglas is Catholic, Margaret Tudor's daughter, and married to an English-Raised Scot. With sons to secure the Succession.

My money's on Meg Douglas.

 

[RedKing]

No, the Third Succession Act did not declare Katherine Grey the heir (it did, of course, declare Elizabeth the heir). The promotion of the Greys was Henry VIII's will.

Okay, so I may have been wrong beforehand on other stuff but this is wrong. The third succession act put the Grey sisters next in line after the Tudors, so going off the act (which would be in force during Mary’s reign), Katherine grey would be the heir to Mary, if Elizabeth was dead.

 

[Jonathan1997]

Mary Queen of Scots becomes Mary II of England and it's possible there may be a union between England Scotland and Wales with the kingdom of France should Mary Queen of Scots husband Francis II of France not die.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

To what extent was Elizabeth regarded as Mary's probable successor before Mary's own succession?

As of 1553, Mary was a 37-year-old spinster. I'd think that many thought she would not have children.

Of course this not really parallel to James II's accession in 1685; James was deposed despite his pledge to respect the Protestant status of England, while Mary acceded in spite of her clear intent to suppress Protestantism.

Certainly Elizabeth was regarded as Mary's rightful successor as of 1553. That was one of the stumbling blocks to Northumberland's attempt to place Jane on the throne; Jane was not next in line. If Elizabeth is not present, do Northumberland and Edward alter the succession sooner and more authoritatively?

Also, without Elizabeth, where does Jane actually stand? If she is already heir presumptive to the heir presumptive, her marriage to Guildford Dudley becomes unlikely - a future Queen regnant would be reserved for a proper royal match.

Hey, there's a TL idea: Elizabeth dies in 1551 of sweating sickness. Northumberland tries to marry Jane to Guildford, but it blows up in his face and he is removed as Lord Protector. (Who replaces him?) Mary succeeds, marries Philip, and dies childless. Does Jane now succeed uncontested? Mary would prefer a Catholic successor over Jane, but OTL she would have preferred a Catholic successor over Elizabeth.

Here's yet another random idea: WI Mary doesn't develop uterine cancer (but remains childless), and lives to be say 68? That gives her an additional 25 years to suppress Protestantism in England. It also blocks both of Philip's later marriages, and he probably dies without offspring. That shakes up the Spanish succession.

 

[material_boy]

To what extent was Elizabeth regarded as Mary's probable successor before Mary's own succession?

Considering Henry VIII added both Mary and Elizabeth to the succession before his death, and that the country almost universally rejected Edward VI's devise for the succession in favor of Henry VIII's eldest daughter, I think it's safe to say that a very large majority of people regarded Mary as Edward's heir and Elizabeth as Mary's heir.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Considering Henry VIII added both Mary and Elizabeth to the succession before his death, and that the country almost universally rejected Edward VI's devise for the succession in favor of Henry VIII's eldest daughter, I think it's safe to say that a very large majority of people regarded Mary as Edward's heir and Elizabeth as Mary's heir.

But only if Mary has no children, which is far from certain. With Mary being relatively old and single (as of 1553), how probable was that outcome generally considered?

And there were other ways Elizabeth might be excluded from the succession. Mary could force her into a foreign marriage. If Mary was clever, she could marry Elizabeth to a foreign Protestant, removing her from the country and clearing the way for Mary to insert a Catholic into the succession. That secures Catholic control of England, which would fall if Elizabeth succeeds. (Why would Elizabeth consent? Because Mary threatens her with forced marriage to a Catholic, or imprisonment as a heretic, or confinement to a convent - even execution for alleged involvement in plots against Mary.)

 

[ranichi17]

Late to the party as usual, but IIRC at some point Mary was thinking about bypassing Elizabeth entirely and declaring Margaret Douglas as her heir. (I think it was to Renard that she told this? Not sure, I just woke up.) It was only after her council told her Parliament wouldn't agree that she dropped the issue. And since Elizabeth's already dead in this scenario, that might go smoother, so long as Margaret doesn't pull a fast one on her cousin. Also, I just read the Third Succession Act again, and it doesn't really say anything about Margaret's line, just that Mary and Elizabeth were restored to the succession, so yes, legally MQOS would be Mary's heir, but assuming she agrees with Edward that the Scots can't have England, she'd probably have her own Devise.

Here's yet another random idea: WI Mary doesn't develop uterine cancer (but remains childless), and lives to be say 68? That gives her an additional 25 years to suppress Protestantism in England. It also blocks both of Philip's later marriages, and he probably dies without offspring. That shakes up the Spanish succession.

Oh, here's a fun one. In the absence of an heir, Philip and Mary could ask for an annulment from the Pope, but assuming whoever's the current Pope doesn't grant them one, Philip's only heir would be Don Carlos. IOTL, he was supposed to marry Elizabeth de Valois who ended up as his father's third bride, so let's say instead of being his sisters, Isabella Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela become his daughters by Elizabeth instead, before he dies as IOTL. Not so much as a shakeup of the Spanish succession, but it would be fun to have Spain inherited by a daughter yet again. As for England? Mary could do what Elizabeth did IOTL by balking at declaring an heir until her deathbed.

 

[material_boy]

But only if Mary has no children

Yes, that is what an heir presumptive is -- an heir which can be displaced by the birth of another.

And there were other ways Elizabeth might be excluded from the succession. Mary could force her into a foreign marriage. If Mary was clever, she could marry Elizabeth to a foreign Protestant, removing her from the country and clearing the way for Mary to insert a Catholic into the succession

I think the overwhelming demonstration of support for Mary -- a marginal political figure for most of her adult life -- after Edward VI's death makes it pretty clear that the country is not going to accept anyone but the last surviving child of Henry VIII should Mary not produce children.

With regard specifically to wedding Elizabeth off to a foreign Protestant, this is an extremely ill-advised move. Not only does it legitimize Protestant princes, but it gives any religious opposition to Mary within England a possible foreign ally. It for this reason (but in the reverse) that Mary is not allowed to wed a Catholic before she comes to power in her own right.

 

[isabella]

Oh, here's a fun one. In the absence of an heir, Philip and Mary could ask for an annulment from the Pope, but assuming whoever's the current Pope doesn't grant them one, Philip's only heir would be Don Carlos. IOTL, he was supposed to marry Elizabeth de Valois who ended up as his father's third bride, so let's say instead of being his sisters, Isabella Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela become his daughters by Elizabeth instead, before he dies as IOTL. Not so much as a shakeup of the Spanish succession, but it would be fun to have Spain inherited by a daughter yet again. As for England? Mary could do what Elizabeth did IOTL by balking at declaring an heir until her deathbed.

Ehm, don Carlos leaving children by Elisabeth of France (male or female made little to none difference as a girl would be married to one of her Austrian cousins) is a BIG shakeup in Iberia as don Carlos’ line would be the senior one in Portugal AFTER the death of Sebastian, guaranteeing a straight succession and butterflying Cardinal Henry’s reign.